T1B

NEW YORK -- The health police could wind up patrolling the kitchens of New York City restaurants.

They already have a smoking ban. Now, the health department wants a ban on artificial trans fatty acids.

Those artery cloggers turn up in a lot of tasty foods, from doughnuts to fries. The health commissioner calls it a "dangerous and unnecessary ingredient" that's easily replaced and which "no one will miss."

But the city chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association can't believe it. They said cooks will have to toss out old recipes. And eateries could be fined if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening.

A ban could also affect some fast-food restaurants. New York City's Board of Health won't consider the ban until at least December.

Finally, someone is showing genuine concern for Jimmy Mediocre’s health insurance premiums.

Memo to eeach and ever one of you asswipes who bitch about people smoking, people smoking marijuana, people watching porn, people...doing anything that isn't really your business....

This is what happens when we follow the liberal(usually, but certainly not limited to, the republicans) to its logical conclusion -- the Control Your Life Police watching what you eat.


It's about time to stand up to Jimmy Meds' ultra-liberal movement, and get these assclowns out of office.


Oh, and quit bitching about what other people do within their 4 walls and with their own bodies, asswipes. It's none of your fucking business.

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:It's about time to stand up to Jimmy Meds' ultra-liberal movement, and get these assclowns out of office.

Just what in the fuck does Jimmy Meds and Washington Republicrats have to do with New York City's Health Board?

They're all representative of the nanny state mentality.

mvscal wrote: Just what in the fuck does Jimmy Meds and Washington Republicrats have to do with New York City's Health Board?

Because Jimmy Meds is a card-carrying member of the ultra-liberal movement that thinks that they should have a say in the behavior of others, because it has an effect on his health-care costs.

And Washington republicans...many have joined W's ultra-liberal movement, and are very quietly deciding that they should regulate what kind of porn is acceptable to watch...you know, since they're all about "state's rights" and stuff.

The liberals must be stopped -- vote democrat, or better yet, independent.

What I fucking love most are the assclowns who want to tell me what should and shouldn't bother me.

Tell you what -- I'll decide what bothers me and you can shut the fuck up about it. Or whine about it. Whichever you prefer. Deal?

I don't give a shit what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

But when someone's blowing smoke in my booth at a public restaurant as I'm trying to enjoy my steak, then what they're doing becomes my business.

Personal "freedoms" aren't a one way street. Someone's choice to light up next to me in a restaurant in which the smoking/non smoking portions are poorly sectioned off, shouldn't trump my choice to NOT want to have to inhale the thousands of chemicals that just exited that person's body.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:What I fucking love most are the assclowns who want to tell me what should and shouldn't bother me.

Tell you what -- I'll decide what bothers me and you can shut the fuck up about it. Or whine about it. Whichever you prefer. Deal?

I don't give a shit what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

But when someone's blowing smoke in my booth at a public restaurant as I'm trying to enjoy my steak, then what they're doing becomes my business.

Personal "freedoms" aren't a one way street. Someone's choice to light up next to me in a restaurant in which the smoking/non smoking portions are poorly sectioned off, shouldn't trump my choice to NOT want to have to inhale the thousands of chemicals that just exited that person's body.

I guess the choice to not eat at said place never occoured to you?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:public restaurant

Help me out here -- when did the United States become a socialist nation?

There's no such thing as a "public restaurant," save for possibly snack booths in stadiums, and kiosks in parks and whatnot.

"freedoms" aren't a one way street. Someone's choice to light up next to me in a restaurant in which the smoking/non smoking portions are poorly sectioned off, shouldn't trump my choice to NOT want to have to inhale the thousands of chemicals that just exited that person's body.

What an excellent example of KYOA.


So, you think your "choice" trumps the rights of the property owner...in the very same post that you say "I don't give a shit what people do in the privacy of their own homes."


Fucking TEARS, Jerry.

Don't give a shit what people do in the privacy of their own homes, but have no problem telling them what should and shouldn't be allowed in their business that they own...ohhhhhhhkay there, liberal.


See how this "free market" system works? The business owner decides for himself what legal activities are and aren't permissable, and you either support or reject his decision with your dollar.

See how that works? Market forces driving the business climate? Once you fucking liberals get that through your thick skulls, and quit deciding for others how they should live their lives and run their private businesses, this country will be a better place.


Fucking liberals...

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:The liberals must be stopped -- vote democrat, or better yet, independent.

Who the fuck do you think is running New York City?

A Republican.

sin

BSmack wrote:I guess the choice to not eat at said place never occoured to you?

Of course it has. But I shouldn't have to make that choice. That's my point. In this instance, my choice to not have my health infringed upon in a public place by someone doing something out of mere desire -- and not a necessity -- should win over.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote: Who the fuck do you think is running New York City?

A Republican.

And about a 95% democrat city council.

But NY dems tend to be extremists. As do california dems.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote: Who the fuck do you think is running New York City?

A Republican.

He's just another Big Government Liberal. That 'R' doesn't mean shit and you know it.

Just like Bush and Cheney.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

BSmack wrote:I guess the choice to not eat at said place never occoured to you?

Of course it has. But I shouldn't have to make that choice. That's my point. In this instance, my choice to not have my health infringed upon in a public place by someone doing something out of mere desire -- and not a necessity -- should win over.

Yet you'll walk out of an environmentally controlled bio-chamber of a restaraunt that meets your criteria of safe air, and then walk out onto a public street and suck in thousands of toxins from internal combustion engine and factory emissions? And then fire up your own rig of death and drive away? Epic logic there by yet another nazi against lawful activities.

Your health isn't infringed on, you whiny fucking crybaby

What if I feel like taking a shit in the booth at Appleby's.

Can I get a ruling?

Jsc810 wrote: You must have a distorted definition of "public".

Last I checked, restaurants are on private property. The owner pays taxes on that property(depending on state, I guess).

Nope, a restaurant certainly isn't "public...except in the case of vendors operating under license in public places, such as parks and whatsuch.

So no, it's not my business to tell a business owner how to run his business. I merely dedide whether to spend money there or not.

It's kind of a "free market" thing.

Uncle Fester wrote:

Your health isn't infringed on, you whiny fucking crybaby

What if I feel like taking a shit in the booth at Appleby's.

Can I get a ruling?

Just don’t put it on a plate. Someone will mistake it for their order.

mvscal wrote:
Your health isn't infringed on, you whiny fucking crybaby.

Uh-Oh...here we go...AGAIN.


MGO now needs to choose whether he wants to make a fool of himself twice in a single thread.

Dinsdale wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Your health isn't infringed on, you whiny fucking crybaby.

Uh-Oh...here we go...AGAIN.


MGO now needs to choose whether he wants to make a fool of himself twice in a single thread.

I didn't know you guys were going to get all serious and shit. I'll be back later when I get outta work.

Dinsdale wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Your health isn't infringed on, you whiny fucking crybaby.

Uh-Oh...here we go...AGAIN.


MGO now needs to choose whether he wants to make a fool of himself twice in a single thread.

Dude is having a great week in the CFB forum though.

sin.
Van

Jsc810 wrote:Read this, if you're interested.

I’m much too nice a person to be an attorney, but it seems to me that they are defining a public place in relation to prohibiting discrimination or segregation in these places, not in relation to every damn thing that may or may not be done on the premises.

In fact, the prohibition against segregation probably speaks to the removal of smoking vs. non-smoking sections.

Dinsdale wrote:So, you think your "choice" trumps the rights of the property owner...in the very same post that you say "I don't give a shit what people do in the privacy of their own homes."

Don't give a shit what people do in the privacy of their own homes, but have no problem telling them what should and shouldn't be allowed in their business that they own...ohhhhhhhkay there, liberal.


See how this "free market" system works? The business owner decides for himself what legal activities are and aren't permissable, and you either support or reject his decision with your dollar.

See how that works? Market forces driving the business climate? Once you fucking liberals get that through your thick skulls, and quit deciding for others how they should live their lives and run their private businesses, this country will be a better place.

A good example of this is the hotel industry. Marriott, for instance, has banned smoking in all (or just about all) their rooms. Not because the gov't told them they had to, but because the company is run by Mormons ...er, because they chose to. They realize that they'll lose business from the butt-sucking crowd, but will make it up from non-smokers who may switch to staying at Marriott's because of that policy. Conversely, the hotel chains that still provide smoking rooms will get more biz from smokers who used to stay at Marriotts.

On the other hand, I'm glad that there are federal regulations that ban smoking on flights. The whole smoking/non-smoking sections were jokes. I suppose a compromise, in the name of individual and corporate rights, could've been reached whereby some flights were designated as non-smoking, while others allowed it, giving passengers a choice. But there still would've been issues with crewmembers, fully booked flights, cancellation of flights, etc., that would have caused wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Restaurants fall in the middle. From a purely selfish perspective as a non-smoker, I won't complain too loudly about smoking bans in restaurants. But in the larger scheme of things, as a supporter of minimum interference by gov't into what individuals do in private and how business owners choose to operate, I'd be willing to forgo patronizing restaurants that allowed smoking and didn't have an adequately partitioned non-smoking section if other restaurants of similar quality offered the smoke-free environment that I prefer. To me, the sensible solution is to legislate requirements on restaurant owners/operators to provide adequately partitioned and ventilated non-smoking sections if they choose to also allow smoking, or offer tax breaks or other benefits to proprietors who voluntarily implement and enforce no-smoking policies. They're not perfect solutions, but they are more fair than outright bans.

Jsc810 wrote: Right. Like I said, you have a distorted definition of "public".

Read this, if you're interested.

"Public accomodation" and "public" are two different things (they call those "premises open to the public" in legal jargon around these parts-btw).

"Public accomodation" means a PRIVATE BUSINESS that opens its doors to the general public. "Public" is something owned by the people of the United States, or the individual state. You, me, nor anyone besides the business owner pays taxes on that business, nor do we share the profits or losses...

Nope, not "public." And since it's not, no liberal-do-gooder has any right to tell the owner of that PRIVATE BUSINESS what he should do in it. As long as he makes it clear to the general public that smoking is allowed on the premises, whose freaking business is it to tell him he can't run it how he sees fit?


Fucking liberals.

Smackie Chan wrote:To me, the sensible solution is to legislate requirements on restaurant owners/operators to provide adequately partitioned and ventilated non-smoking sections if they choose to also allow smoking, or offer tax breaks or other benefits to proprietors who voluntarily implement and enforce no-smoking policies. They're not perfect solutions, but they are more fair than outright bans.

I've got an even more sensible solution, that's even more "fair" -- mind your own fucking business, and stay out of everyone else's.

In this instance, the free-market system will sort this out quite nicely, without some liberal douchebag misapropriating my tax dollars to promote a personal agenda.

Jsc810 wrote:Interesting. We can now assume that Dins favors the decriminalization of sodomy, and also would allow gays to get married.

Stay out of their business, they'll stay out of yours. OK.

There are no laws against unforced sodomy in my state. Why would there nbe? Not my business what 2 consenting adults do with their privates behind closed doors.

Hell, it's legal to jerk off in a public restroom here. If I'm not mistaken, it's legal to walk around naked. There's public nude beaches around town here. Not supposed to have sex in public, though...a law I've broken numerous times.

As far as gay marriage -- that, to me, is more of a tax dodge/free benefits thing than a moral thing, so I'm still on the fence here. If it wasn't for the possible advantages that it gives the homos as far as public health and taxation, I really couldn;t care less if Bruce and Roger want to get married, since fiscal issues aside, it doesn't affect me.

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote: allow gays to get married.

Sorry, they don't qualify. It's that simple.

Why do you hate Cicero and Tiberious?

Dinsdale wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:To me, the sensible solution is to legislate requirements on restaurant owners/operators to provide adequately partitioned and ventilated non-smoking sections if they choose to also allow smoking, or offer tax breaks or other benefits to proprietors who voluntarily implement and enforce no-smoking policies. They're not perfect solutions, but they are more fair than outright bans.

I've got an even more sensible solution, that's even more "fair" -- mind your own fucking business, and stay out of everyone else's.

In this instance, the free-market system will sort this out quite nicely, without some liberal douchebag misapropriating my tax dollars to promote a personal agenda.

In this case, the free-market will sort it out thusly: As a business owner, I know I can make more money (my reason for being in business) by attracting as many customers as I can. An impediment to achieving this goal is to voluntarily restrict who can patronize my establishment, or limit their actions (such as not allow them to smoke). So if I'm in business to maximize my revenues/profits, why would I voluntarily take action that puts up a roadblock to achieving my goal? Exactly - I wouldn't! Smokers would basically have free reign, and if I'm a non-smoker who wants to enjoy a meal in a nice restaurant, my choice (read: minding my own fucking business) is to put up with cigarette smoke, or stay home. The free market is not going to help me out in this case.

There are plenty of instances in other areas of the law and acceptable behavior where gov't rightfully steps in and imposes limits. If I choose to throw a party on my private property (where neighbors are relatively nearby), am I allowed to do whatever the fuck I want? Nope. I'm subject to noise restrictions (keeping it below a reasonable decibel level at all times, and even greater restrictions after certain hours). Do you consider this to be unreasonable? To me, it's a case of gov't trying to strike a reasonable balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the public at large. There are very few, if any, absolute freedoms; all have limitations. If I'm in a restaurant, should I have the right to walk up to a table where others are enjoying a meal and fart or engage in loud, profane, and abusive language? After all, we have a right to free speech and natural bodily functions. But don't we also have a right to not be subjected to a public (even if it is in a privately-owned establishment) nuisance? I would put smoking in this same category. I'm not trying to keep you from smoking if that's what you want to do. I'm not trying to make you stay home and smoke, either. I want the same thing you want and deserve - the ability to go out and enjoy a nice meal the way I want to. The difference is your idea of a nice meal is one where you can light up after (or even during) your meal, and mine is one where I can eat in a smoke-free environment. If we're sitting at adjacent tables, my non-smoking does nothing to detract from your ability get what you want. But your smoking detracts from my ability to get what I want - it constitutes (mild as it may be) a nuisance. I'm all in favor of allowing the free market to work this one out to everyone's satisfaction. But it never will.

Smackie Chan wrote:An impediment to achieving this goal is to voluntarily restrict who can patronize my establishment, or limit their actions (such as not allow them to smoke). So if I'm in business to maximize my revenues/profits, why would I voluntarily take action that puts up a roadblock to achieving my goal? Exactly - I wouldn't! Smokers would basically have free reign, and if I'm a non-smoker who wants to enjoy a meal in a nice restaurant, my choice (read: minding my own fucking business) is to put up with cigarette smoke, or stay home.

Well, that was a very well-written, well thought-out load of complete fucking horseshit.

First, the majority of American adults don't smoke. Huge hole in your theory #1.

#2 -- As far as "forced to stay home" -- "free market" do you speak it, motherfucker? Let's see, if the majority of American adults were forced to "stay home" if they didn't want to be subjected to smoke...hmmm....I wonder if someone would ...oh...say....OPEN A SMOKE-FREE ESABLISHMENT?

Nah, nobody would want to capture the MAJORITY of the market like that...wouldn't be the entreprenuerial thing to do.

Smackie...that was just plain dumb.

And as far as noise regulations and whatnot -- could you find a worse analogy? Probably not. Here's a better one:

If I walk up to my neighbor's door, open it, and start blowing cigar smoke into his house as fast as I could, would this be legal?

Your house is your house, and it's your neighbor's obligation to keep the noise and annoyances out of it. Just like it's everyone else's job to keep their nose out of everyone else's business....like that of restaurant owners, for example.

BTW -- the biggest bar chain around here is non-smoking in it's 75(or however many) locations, except where there's seperate buildings or isolated rooms, then they generally allow smoking of both cigarettes and cigars....because the owners are non-smokers, and decided that since a majority of their potential clients don't smoke, they promote that atmosphere.

There's websites that list non-smoking establishments, which make up a good chunk of downtown restaurants and bars.

See how that works? The free market system worked this out on their own, and did so rather easily, and rather quickly once the "I'm the Decider of other people's behavior" crowd started getting lippy.


So, your last point was not only silly, it was just plain inaccurate.

Dinsdale wrote:the majority of American adults don't smoke. Huge hole in your theory #1.

Actually, no. Simple math, really. Let A = non-smokers and B = smokers. It's given that A>B, and that both A and B > 0. That being the case, A + B > A. If I'm a business owner looking to maximize profits, I want my potential pool of customers to come from the group constituted by A + B, not just A.

#2 -- As far as "forced to stay home" -- "free market" do you speak it, motherfucker?

Let's try not to take everything so literally, Dimswad. Admittedly, my use of the word forced wasn't the wisest choice. So let's go ahead and clarify for everyone's sake - no one is being forced to do anything. Mmkay? Human behavior is such that most non-smokers will tolerate cigarette smoke in restaurants that allow smoking, and most smokers will tolerate not being able to light up in those where smoking isn't allowed. Neither side will be totally happy about it, but they'll do it anyway, and complain about it afterward (or during).

Let's see, if the majority of American adults were forced to "stay home" if they didn't want to be subjected to smoke...hmmm....I wonder if someone would ...oh...say....OPEN A SMOKE-FREE ESABLISHMENT?

Few, if any, would, for the reason I gave above. They want to draw from the largest pool of potential customers available, and won't voluntarily limit themselves. It's that pesky capitalist mentality.

nobody would want to capture the MAJORITY of the market like that...wouldn't be the entreprenuerial thing to do.

Why just capture the majority of the market when you can capture the whole thing? That would be the entrepreneurial thing to do.

And as far as noise regulations and whatnot -- could you find a worse analogy? Probably not.

Without much effort, I could find plenty of worse ones. But I'll spare you and everyone else.

My stance remains the same. I'm perfectly willing to allow the free market to resolve society's conflicts to the extent that it is able, and in those instances where it has the ability. This is simply not one of them. I'm not gonna equate it to health and environmental issues, in which I think even you would agree that gov't regulation is justified and necessary. This is more of a "pursuit of happiness" issue, which, I know, is not in the same league. Citizens groups of non-smokers could form to organize boycotts of restaurants and compel them, through free-market forces, to voluntarily impose smoking bans or restrictions. But they wouldn't work, and there would still be more money to be made by allowing smoking than by disallowing it. Until the accountants can show that the bottom line would increase by banning smoking, it ain't gonna happen. And the accountants will not, in the near future anyway, be able to show that. It's that simple math thing.

Dinsdale wrote:The free market system worked this out on their own, and did so rather easily, and rather quickly once the "I'm the Decider of other people's behavior" crowd started getting lippy.

Sometimes, getting lippy is what's needed in order for action to be taken.

Nice response, Smackie...except the part where I stated that in the area where I live, the free market system hgas done EXACTLY THAT.

Sure, the do-gooders are still crying about smoking bans, but at this point, I doubt it's going to happen, because the FREE MARKET SYTEM sorted it out.

If you really can't comprehend this, then I will take this opportunity, once again, to triumphantly RACK the area I live in, since its residents seem to be considerably smarter and more reasonable than elsewhere.

On an occasion, we let the people do the thinking for themselves...crazy concept.

Dins -

We're not talking about the source of ownership here, dipshit. Obviously most restaurants are privately owned, but the minute a business opens its doors to every participating member of society -- it becomes a public establishment. And if you look at every piece of legislation passed in every state which has banned smoking in restaurants and bars - they'll all agree with me, actually citing the word "public," on numerous occasions. And though said private owners should be able to run their joint however they wish, they should NOT win the battle over what public health and safety officials deem to be hazardous. Afterall, (and I'll take this line from you) these people actually do this shit for a living so if they say it's a good idea to ban smoking in a public place for the health and safety of others (especially the employees) then, I'm going to take their word over yours.

oh, and mv - shut the fuck up, dumbass.

Good one.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:if they say it's a good idea to ban smoking in a public place for the health and safety of others (especially the employees) then, I'm going to take their word over yours.

Oh fuck...he "went there."


OK MGO, same as the last several times this came up --

Quote or link ONE scientific study that shows that secondhand smoke is hazardous to human health.

One.

Or, you could list ONE person who was definitively diagnosed with an ailment directly caused by secondhand smoke.

One.

Or, you could name one person in the history of mankind whose death was definitively caused by secondhand smoke.

One.


I'll tell you what...since I kind of like you, in a strictly non-gay-inetrnet-way, I'll help you out and save you some time...


There isn't one.

Not one of any of the above.

You'd think there would at least be one scrap of scientific evidence for such an insidious threat to humanity...yet there isn't.

Not one example of any of the above. The ONLY evidence ever provided for this political-talking-point is purely anecdotal, and no responsible scientist would do anything but be overcome with fits of laughter at the methodolgy used to come up with it.

Yet, for some odd reason, people want to cite phantom health statistics as a reason to pass legislation to control their neighbor's behavior.

So, starting to see that this issue is purely the work of the talking heads, and not the scientists?


I doubt that anybody is going to argue that smoking cigarettes is good for you(except in the case of Alzheimer's patients...you DO realize that's generally a disease of nonsmokers, right?), but the same methodolgy that the anti-smoking lobby/fascists use to trump their cause also shows us that people who smoke half a pack of cigarettes a day or less have a very slight increase in risks of "smoking related illnesses." Yet, people somehow warp those "studies" to say that while half-packers have a slight increase in risk, nonsmokers who breathe secondhand smoke have their risk increased by a factor of elenteenbuhzillion times over.


C'mon. Let's get the politics out of it, and quit lying about things.


And speaking of "smoking related illnesses" -- you DO realize that the vast majority of NONSMOKERS die from "smoking related illnesses," too....right? Tell me you knew?


And you might even want to look into this yourself -- do a search and see which developed countries have the highest life expectancy. Now, do a search and see which countries have the highest percentage of smokers.


WELL HOW ABOUT THAT!!!!!!!


Here's a link, if it's easier -- http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages2.htm

Or, you can visit any of thousands of websites that will all quote those same figures.

If smoking is the overriding factor here, why are those results what they are? Japans' life expectancy has increased dramatically at a rate and time that their rate of smokers has gone up dramatically.

How can that be?

Oh, probably because the anti-smoking lobby is full of complete bullshit.

Two people I know have died of, or are currently dying of lung cancer. Take a guess what the relevant commonality they share is?

Yup, nonsmokers.


As people live to be older, guess what? More and more people die of things like lung cancer, heart didease, stroke, and a host of other ailments. And here's a newsflash...those are ailments of old-age, not neccessarily "smoking related illnesses." To call something that more nonsmokers die from than smokers a "smoking related illness" is just a bit dishonest, wouldn't you say?

And it's certainly not something we should be basing babysitting-type legislation on, I think any responsible citizen would agree. It's kind of like compling data as to which members of Army convoys(or as my friend who used to ride on them called them, "RPG target practice for Arabs") were wearing seatbelts when they were killed on the hiway in Iraq to determine seatbelt safety -- it's just plain dishonest.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:And though said private owners should be able to run their joint however they wish, they should NOT win the battle over what public health and safety officials deem to be hazardous.

Complete bullshit, especially as it pertains to the original topic of this thread, which is the "danger" of trans fatty acids.

Are you fucking kidding me? What's next, a ban on coffee and tea by "health and safety" officials because caffeine presents health risks?

Dins is $ in this thread.

Dinsdale wrote:Nice response, Smackie...except the part where I stated that in the area where I live, the free market system hgas done EXACTLY THAT.

Easy there, big fella. I wouldn't make the leap from saying that because one chain, which happens to be the largest in the area, has decided on its own to take reasonable steps toward accommodating both smokers and non-smokers, the whole free-market has fixed the problem (if one chooses to see it as such). It may eventually turn out that because this chain has done so, it may affect competition and put market pressure on others to take similar steps. But that is yet to be seen.

Sure, the do-gooders are still crying about smoking bans, but at this point, I doubt it's going to happen, because the FREE MARKET SYTEM sorted it out.

You're sure about that? One large chain taking action on its own constitutes a trend and a "sorting out"? Get back to me when the Ma & Pa Bar & Grill on the corner of Podunk Way and Boondocks Blvd. takes similar steps in sorting this out.

If you really can't comprehend this, then I will take this opportunity, once again, to triumphantly RACK the area I live in

Yeah, you better type slower in order to accommodate my comprehension limitations. TIA

its residents seem to be considerably smarter and more reasonable than elsewhere.

Hell, I already knew that. Dincyclopedia out front told me.

Smackie Chan wrote:Easy there, big fella. I wouldn't make the leap from saying that because one chain, which happens to be the largest in the area, has decided on its own to take reasonable steps toward accommodating both smokers and non-smokers, the whole free-market has fixed the problem

Fuck, you had to do this...I've seen a freaking website dedicated to listing those establishments. Of course, at this juncture, I can't find it.

Here's a Yahoo search...http://local.yahoo.com/results?fr=dd-lo ... land%2C+OR

And that's such a tiny fraction of the list...matter of fact, none of the large chain I mentioned outlets are on that list. That was an example, not a comprehensive list, or the subject of the point.

There's hundreds of nonsmoking bars and restaurants around here...hundreds.


So yes, the free market system sorted this out perfectly. Just because you haven't seen it in action, it doesn't mean it can't or hasn't happened.

It may eventually turn out that because this chain has done so, it may affect competition and put market pressure on others to take similar steps. But that is yet to be seen.

Here we go with the cause-and-effect thing. Market forces drove things to a point where many establishments decided it was in their better financial interest, or at least in line with their personal beliefs(we do that sort of thing in the U&L, you know) to ban smoking from their establishments. Many customers favored the environment, and told nonsmoking friends. These establishments became overcrowded, and so other establishments...do I really fucking need to finish this story for you?

It WAS a result of the free market system. Not legislation(although there's still plenty of whiners wanting legislation, but those people are fucking whiners and need to get a hobby besides whining). Not anything else. Pure, unadulterated free market economics.

You're sure about that? One large chain taking action on its own constitutes a trend and a "sorting out"? Get back to me when the Ma & Pa Bar & Grill on the corner of Podunk Way and Boondocks Blvd. takes similar steps in sorting this out.

But see, therein lies the rub, and the free market will sort this out, too -- people who frequent Ma and Pa's on Hodunk Way tend to be blue collar in nature, with higher smoking rates, and also tend to not be whining pussies. Not too many truck drivers and loggers have been overheard saying "you know Wendell, I just don't want to hang out in this den of sin, what with all of these horrible smokers in here...and this secondhand smoke might possibly harm my fragile lungs, you big silly...let's go to Darcelle's!!!!"


C'mon...be real. Embrace the free market.

Dincyclopedia

I'm the one victimized by this, and I still laughed...I hope you get your due RACKs for it...commie

There's going to be a total smoking ban in England next year, like there has been in Ireland and Scotland.

An interesting and unsavoury upshot of bans in those countries is that their pubs, now devoid of the fug of fag smoke, now all stink of farts.

Yeah, but your country is beginning to resemble the level of control that your favorite folks, the Nazis exercized.

When are they going to put cameras in people's houses, in the name of "public safety?"


I hate to say it, but the UK is truly having a meltdown right now.

But then again, you have no employment, so maybe it's sound socialist policy to pay one half of the population to keep an eye on the other half...the half that actually works.

what have you been reading? The UK unemployment rate is low as fuck compared to the Thatcher years.

As for CCTV...it's nowhere near as bad as its made out to be here. And assuming the current government is 'socialist' is like assuming the media is 'liberal'.

Look, Dins. I tried tellin' you that I have comprehension issues. Case in point: I conveniently overlooked the part where you said:

There's websites that list non-smoking establishments, which make up a good chunk of downtown restaurants and bars.

This isn't really such a big deal, since all it essentially does is render most of my previous post moot. But am I going to let that stop me from continuing this debate. Oh, hell no! I'll simply appeal to your overblown sense of hometown pride, and continue from there.

So maybe the U&L has enough sense to allow the free market to take care of the issue itself. Does this mean that most other communities will follow suit? It could, but prolly doesn't. Remember, by your own admission, y'all are more enlightened than the rest of the country. I'm sure this is due, at least in part, to the fact that you're in a blue state. (I never claimed to be a uniter, as far as I can remember.) The fact that one market, relatively small in the overall scheme of things, has demonstrated common sense does not translate into the national free market having sorted things out. And this is America, dammit! We demand instant gratification. We're not willing to wait for market forces to take their natural course to fix a problem. We expect gov't to speed things along. My Latin is a little rusty, but if I'm not mistaken, our national motto, E pluribus unum, translates into There oughtta be a law!

So put that in your pipe and smoke it. In your favorite restaurant, of course.